Confused of Malvern: "Through December 2, 2013...." ? What ghastly grammer!
Come on DPReview, you can do better than that - either "Until 2nd December.." or "Up to and including 2nd December..."
It's grammar, not grammer.
DesertRat2012: In the final analysis it's a matter of legal licenses. Just as Apple revolutionized the world of media distribution by selling cheap licenses via internet, major software developers are also trying to capture at least some compensation for their efforts from more than a miniscule fraction of their actual user base. Having just returned to the USA from Latin America I can tell stories of major design firms circulating a single 'broken' copy of CS to be installed by the 25 or more menbers of their design team. The real question, in fact, being whether or not the firm had actually purchased even a single license in the first place. Maybe it's time that we in the US and Western Europe, where the threat of litigation might actually carry some weight, are ready to stop subsidising development costs for the entire world.
Unfortunately, it is not the fault of people who buy and use software legally. The world has changed and intellectual property has no meaning in much of the world. That's not Adobe's fault and it's not my fault, either.
While I deplore schemes that make you pay every month for the rest of your life, the number of smart phone users suggests people are willing to rent instead of buy if it means enough to them.
Marty4650: I think Adobe is willing to lose a lot of customers, in order to make a WHOLE LOT more money from their remaining customers.
They simply can't be stupid enough to switch to a a subscription service without running the numbers first. They KNOW they will end up with fewer customers, but they will end up making a whole lot more money by renting software, rather than by selling it.
Sure.... for the high end users, it will make little difference. Because they bought every upgrade, and it works out about the same as paying subscription fees. But I'd wager that MOST of Adobe's past customers would skip an upgrade or two, or three, or more. Because when you buy software, it still keeps working even if it lacks the new features.
With a subscription service EVERY customer must pay for every upgrade, whether they want it or not.
They have made the calculation that a steady income of $20/month...make that $10, is better than risking users won't see much value in each new version. To Adobe, a rented slice of bread is better than no bread at all.
While they are clueless with marketing, they do keep track of what sells. Their last few surveys have had a multiple choice option "I prefer to skip one version between upgrades." The subscription is the only way to compel customers to "buy" each new version. From Adobe's point of view, it makes a lot of sense.
Biowizard: Does this early cut-price offer indicated that the CC "rental" concept was a comparative flop?
Adobe needs steady income and in terms of features, there really isn't anything wrong with the current software. So it's simple. To survive, they need to get people to pay even if there is nothing new and substantial to pay for. That's where the subscription comes from. The cloud is just a solution looking for a problem.
ijak: Carrot dangling, trying to move people into bondage. … Miss a payment and all your interim work is lost.
Tiff. Just like operating systems, older is usually better and always less trouble.
kimsch: Adobe must be really desperate. I think I will wait for the $4.99 offer ;-)
If Adobe was savvy enough to test the waters they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. It just turned out that people weren't willing to pay more. Not to mention the fairness issue, with some people eligible and others, not.
Carlos Loff: Photoshop is now for companies, Adobe wants us to just buy Lightroom, I m so lucky to still have the Legal registered CS6 on my Mac but without connecting to the Cloud, IM LOVING IT !!!
Until version 7 comes along.
I understand the significance of a camera being small and light enough to be with you vs. left at home but beyond that, come on. Will DPR be testing shirt pockets, vest pockets, tight jeans? How about the top 10 cameras for sitting on?
OneGuy: I like to read up on Nikon Df but GM1 is something I am actually thinking of getting. But I was looking for an answer to the ol' AF question. Is it better with 1.7/20mm lens? How much? I see some of your samples use the II version and -- come on, no comment on AF speed?
Is the lens protected well enough? I think it needs a wider (read noticeable) yet light and pliable shoulder strap (that could also be used for wrap-around protection in my daily regular bag).
That's interesting about the quick focus. I wonder how it affects the battery life, though.
HappyVan: OP has expressed a personal preference. That's fine.
Just got to remember that the majority of DPR regulars are enthusiasts, not opportunistic snapshooters.
Versatility over portability. Depth versus weight.
It's true that people looked down on 35mm "miniature" photography but that's because film quality didn't allow small cameras to approach what you could get with a 4x5, let alone 8x10. Nobody was suggesting capturing the decisive moment with an 8x10 camera or getting Ansel Adams quality landscapes from 35mm (although both have been tried).
deeohuu: "Rare photos". What an odd phrase. What is rare about them? Think about it. Any definition that sort of works means that the vast majority of photos are "rare".
It was an attempt at humor as the term rare, which was always vague, is now meaningless.
yabokkie: Leica is a name that has nothing to do with photography, except this Barnack Award.
Underneath the lizard skin covering, these are still amazing cameras. I wouldn't be suprised to see some version of the Leica M body still around when button covered gizmos like the Df are in tech musuems next to the Walkmans. And I can't really fault them for charging what people are willing to pay, either. Like Dillinger, they go where the money is.
ceaiu: Why is everyone assuming only Sigma is affected? Maybe they're the only ones (or just the first) to have a fix.
When I worked in retail, the most compatibility issues (such as "FEE" error) where with Tamron. Happened with both Canon and Nikon mounts. The most quality problems overall were Sigma. Not one problem with Tokina but to be fair, there were fewer Tokinas available so we sold fewer.
I think rare means there aren't too many.
Cane: I have some 'rare' photo's of me in college doing the same thing. I may call some auction houses, see what they're worth on the market.
Try eBay. Rare works every time on eBay.
As these photos available for licensing? I'm thinking annual reports for the photo industry.
Popular Photography has been doing this for years.
These are just outstanding.
Paul_B Midlands UK: Big splash Sony - 2000 comments in a day, whereas poor old Pentax K3 150 comments in 5 days, they must be mortified. In this formula if I come back in a week Sony will be at 10,000 ... well probably not ule geeks will all be bored by then and ripping apart the next newbie bit of kit.
These Sonys could set a record for the number of comments but since no one has actually used one, the importance of the exact number of comments has to be zero.
Nonetheless (one word) being in DPR's pantheon of comments along with the Df, D600 dust, Adobe subscriptions and white orbs has to count for something.